Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China's Silk Road Illusions

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#71

Post by dmix »

mcv wrote: post #60
jcranmer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Particularly with how Germany really lost the war to the Soviets in late 1942 when they failed to subdue Russia in the early invasion. The west (US/UK/Canada) largely just cleaned up the mess from 1943-45, as the Nazi's were fighting an impossible war after that point. Even then Russia did most of the work in terms of raw combat. But even when this is noted in history books Russia's success is largely dismissed as…

There are no easy shortcuts to explaining the balance of war afford in WW2. The vast majority of the fighting did happen on Russian soil. The sacrifice of Russian soldiers is enormous. It's true that the Russian command had little problems with sacrificing the lives of Russian soldiers, but it's also likely that that sacrifice may have been necessary to stop the German advance. Lend-lease may well have been the most…

> And the Russian tanks absolutely did matter.

Exactly, the entire German gamble of invading Russia was a repeat of their (genius) invasion of France: highly mobile overrunning of tanks combined with lethal Luftwaffe air support.

The problem was entirely the fact the Germans were completely caught off guard by the quality of Russian tanks and anti-tank guns.

The Nazi's should never have invaded Russia, but their baises against the slavs made them feel superior. Likewise in these biases still exist in North American / European accounts of WW2, where Russia's technological and industrial dominance is downplayed.

It makes sense in the context of the Cold War but in 2017 it saddens me this is still up for debate. Although the fact anti-Russian sentiment is still highly politicized in mass media this might be expecting too much from popular culture on my part...

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#72

Post by dmix »

DrScump wrote: post #34
dmix wrote: post #12

I read the entire article and it's a great read. It's fascinating how much we romanticize about past cultures and how much if it is wrong. I love reading history and this almost always turns out to be the case. Digging into any topic reveals they are always far more complex and multilayered than the the common caricatures you find in media and in generalized accounts. China's popular understanding of the Silk Road se…

the KV-1 tank, which grinded Operation Barbarossa to a halt Your own link says the KV-1 represented only 2% of Soviet tanks there. The real key to the Soviet win is that they could endure 3:1 loss ratios and still outdeploy the Nazis at better than 3:1.

The KV-1 was still critically at the frontlines of the German invasion in eastern europe at many critical junctures. Not to mention the Soviet Army had large reserves deep into Russian territory, what matters was what was deployed in Ukraine and elsewhere on the eastern front in 1942.

Remember the Nazi's invasion depended on their multiple tank groups making a very fast progress through this country, until they reached Moscow. It was not total war combat until much later.

Many of them were halted or destroyed when they faced a single inantry group backed by a KV-1. That was enough to cripple their invasion (among the other equivalent Russian tanks).

If you don't believe my account I highly recommend this book which is the best coverage of the eastern front, and questions much of the popular accounts of WW2 with some great research and plenty of citation:

https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Barbarossa-Germanys-Cambrid...

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#73

Post by dmix »

ivankolev wrote: post #28
spacetexas wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia didn't have better tanks they had more tanks

'Better' is dependent on the viewpoint. Russian tanks were simpler mechanically, ran on diesel, which made them less flammable and in the early years the T34 was actually better than anything the wehrmacht had. The Panther is almost a direct copy of the T34 design. But you are right, at the end the quantities prevailed, it was a war of economies and Russia, having transferred most of its industry far east and out of…

> But you are right, at the end the quantities prevailed, it was a war of economies

My point was the German generals knew this well beforehand. Everyone knew they couldn't beat the Russians in a straight up one-on-one war over a long timespan. They only had a short time window to run them over with their tank/aircraft tactics. And that failed because the Nazi's largely underplayed the quality of Russian tanks/technology.

It doesn't matter if you have 10 German tanks vs 1 Russian tank if those ten tanks can't penetrate the armour of the Russian one. This is a critical difference. Especially when the Nazi's were already strapped for fuel and armaments. Which is why a small number of KV-1s would grind the invasion to a halt until reinforcements could arrive.

As soon as they had to wait for the supply lines and infantry to catch up then the Blitzkrieg tactics are no longer effective and Nazi Germany is now facing Russia on their terms.

It's amazing how this is seemingly such a controversial topic when plenty of well researched literature will back me up here...

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#74

Post by dmix »

mcv wrote: post #62
DrScump wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The T-34 was better than what the Germans had at the time. The T-34 platform was more effective because it vastly outnumbered all German tank models combined, ran on diesel, was easier to repair/replace, and the Soviets were willing to absorb more personnel losses. If you're saying you'd rather go into battle with 5 fully operational T-34s than 5 fully operational Tigers, then we seriously disagree.

The Tiger was a response to the T-34. "At the time" means "at the start of the war". Eventually, the T-34 was overshadowed by better tanks, and the war saw enormous advancements in tank technology. Largely due to the Russians, who were ahead in tank technology at the start of the war. At the start of the war, the Germans had nothing that could touch a T-34. Well, no they had no comparable tank; T-34s are vulnerable f…

And the Russians were defending against an invasion that critically depended on a short (~half year from summer 1942) invasion timeline.

The German generals (and to a lesser extant Hitler) knew Russia could ramp up tank production fast and had way more soldiers then them if it turned into trench warfare or even total warfare level tank vs tank or aircraft vs aircraft fights. Largely because Germany already had to deal with the UK+America+Canada on the other front and we themselves limited in their own production ability vs the much larger Russia (regardless if the Russian industry was less advanced, it was still more advanced than the biased Germans expected the slavs to be).

The simple fact the Russian's had ANY tanks that they couldn't easily deal with, let alone not destroy at all with their own tanks, totally caught the Nazi generals off guard and slowed the whole invasion down.

The technological advantage that Russia had early on can not be downplayed. It was absolutely critical.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#75

Post by dmix »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #50
DrScump wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The T-34 was better than what the Germans had at the time. The T-34 platform was more effective because it vastly outnumbered all German tank models combined, ran on diesel, was easier to repair/replace, and the Soviets were willing to absorb more personnel losses. If you're saying you'd rather go into battle with 5 fully operational T-34s than 5 fully operational Tigers, then we seriously disagree.

The German army used captured T-34 tanks, so they probably did not think of it as a bad piece of equipment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#German_use_of_T-34s Also comparing very different tanks in a general manner has its problems: each has its strong and weak points, it is very difficult to say which one of the differences would be of benefit in a given battle.

Unless of course the Germans did not factor in the idea Russians would have a comparable, let alone better, tank than them when they invaded.

They expected a repeat of the French army capitulation and found a far better army than their anti-slavic literature groomed them to believe they'd be facing.

They expected Russian farmer rednecks, not an industrialized modern army (although I refuse to extend my praise to their infantry which had plenty of issues, other than their dogged determination, which was a serious threat when Hitler was demanding quick wins, even when they did always eventually win).

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#76

Post by DrScump »

dmix wrote: post #74
mcv wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Tiger was a response to the T-34. "At the time" means "at the start of the war". Eventually, the T-34 was overshadowed by better tanks, and the war saw enormous advancements in tank technology. Largely due to the Russians, who were ahead in tank technology at the start of the war. At the start of the war, the Germans had nothing that could touch a T-34. Well, no they had no comparable tank; T-34s are vulnerable f…

And the Russians were defending against an invasion that critically depended on a short (~half year from summer 1942) invasion timeline. The German generals (and to a lesser extant Hitler) knew Russia could ramp up tank production fast and had way more soldiers then them if it turned into trench warfare or even total warfare level tank vs tank or aircraft vs aircraft fights. Largely because Germany already had to dea…

German "strategy" certainly helped.

Had they kept Hitler's egomaniacal lust to crush Stalingrad itself at bay and instead simply encircled Stalingrad to cut off its supplies and proceed to take the Caucasus oil fields instead, the whole war could have turned differently.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#77

Post by [deleted] »

coldtea wrote: post #58
ant6n wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure who's hypothesizing that a modern country has to emulate the US. That's a kind of cold war point of view. Many modern countries these days don't adopt the American system, but are striving towards being modern, pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance, and sane judicial systems.

> I'm not sure who's hypothesizing that a modern country has to emulate the US. That's a kind of cold war point of view. It's also the de facto point of view of western countries, and the yardstick by which they judge other countries. (Including various "NGOs" and "world organizations" that measure the world with the same yardstick and are influenced by the same ideologies and even follow the same political goals).

[deleted]

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#78

Post by ant6n »

thablackbull wrote: post #40
ant6n wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure who's hypothesizing that a modern country has to emulate the US. That's a kind of cold war point of view. Many modern countries these days don't adopt the American system, but are striving towards being modern, pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance, and sane judicial systems.

> I'm not sure who's hypothesizing that a modern country has to emulate the US. I'm just going to focus on one element due to space; one of the core pillars of American economic thinking is the idea of free markets. Through bilateral relationships or organizations like the IMF, etc., developing nations are given a road-map of how to modernize. It may not have to be a carbon copy of America (and that was not my point)…

>> Many modern countries these days don't adopt the American system, but are striving towards being modern, pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance, and sane judicial systems.

> I'll assume you are contrasting with China, so I'll go point by point

No, I'm saying the US is not a pluralist democracy with good governance etc. Obviously, China isn't either. If you're trying to find a modern democracy, look at some EU countries, to a lesser extend Canada, maybe New Zealand, Australia. I think those countries are becoming a guide on what to emulate, while the US is becoming more and more dysfunctional.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#79

Post by ant6n »

coldtea wrote: post #58
ant6n wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure who's hypothesizing that a modern country has to emulate the US. That's a kind of cold war point of view. Many modern countries these days don't adopt the American system, but are striving towards being modern, pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance, and sane judicial systems.

> I'm not sure who's hypothesizing that a modern country has to emulate the US. That's a kind of cold war point of view. It's also the de facto point of view of western countries, and the yardstick by which they judge other countries. (Including various "NGOs" and "world organizations" that measure the world with the same yardstick and are influenced by the same ideologies and even follow the same political goals).

You're just repeating the point by the GP. So I'll simply repeat my point: the US is becoming so dysfunctional that it cannot be called a modern democracy. You have to look to other countries, who are becoming the guide.

If the US is the yard-stick for good governance, then we're all in big trouble.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#80

Post by thrw_pa1 »

mcv wrote: post #60
jcranmer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Particularly with how Germany really lost the war to the Soviets in late 1942 when they failed to subdue Russia in the early invasion. The west (US/UK/Canada) largely just cleaned up the mess from 1943-45, as the Nazi's were fighting an impossible war after that point. Even then Russia did most of the work in terms of raw combat. But even when this is noted in history books Russia's success is largely dismissed as…

There are no easy shortcuts to explaining the balance of war afford in WW2. The vast majority of the fighting did happen on Russian soil. The sacrifice of Russian soldiers is enormous. It's true that the Russian command had little problems with sacrificing the lives of Russian soldiers, but it's also likely that that sacrifice may have been necessary to stop the German advance. Lend-lease may well have been the most…

> Russia had the best tanks in the early war

But without US-provided materials and equipment Soviets will not be able to produce tanks during 1942-1944.

Post reply on HN